ORDER :

The order subject matter of challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is of 29th December 2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Haveri District by which an application made by the petitioner for grant of permission for diversion of the use of schedule land held for the purpose of agriculture in accordance with Sub Section 9 of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the said Act of 1964’), has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of land in Sy.No.382/B of Motebennur Village, Byadagi Taluk, measuring 2 acres (described as ‘the schedule land’). According to the case of the petitioner, she desired to apply for grant of a licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short ‘the said Act of 2011’) for conducting stone crushing activity. Therefore, an application was made by the petitioner initially under Sub Section 2 of Section 95 of the said Act for conversion of the schedule land from agricultural use to its use for setting up a stone crusher unit. The said application was rejected on 3rd January 2011 by an endorsement. Thereafter, Sub Section 9 of Section 95 was incorporated in the said Act of 1964 by the amendment Act No.2 of 2015 with effect from 8th January 2015. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for conversion under the said provision. By the impugned order dated 29th December 2018, the said application was rejected on the ground that as per the report of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Haveri Division, the schedule land is falling within the Eco Sensitive Zone of Ranebennur Black Buck Sanctuary and it was within the distance of 624 from Krishna Muruga Reserve Forest. It was observed that grant of a licence under the said Act of 2011 will be in the violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court.

3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under Sub Section 9 of Section 95, the grant of conversion is automatic. When an application is made under Sub-Section 9 of Section 95 together with the fine applicable, the conversion is deemed to have been granted and there is no question of rejection of the said application, as there is no power to reject such application. His contention is that in view of the deeming fiction, there is no question of exercising power of rejecting the application for deemed conversion.

4. The learned AGA opposed the petition by pointing out that the petitioner is disentitled to grant of licence under the said Act of 2011, as the schedule land which is sought to be used for industrial purpose, is at a distance of 625 meters from Krishna Muruga Reserve Forest and is falling in Eco Sensitive Zone of Ranebennur Black Buck Sanctuary. He pointed out the report dated 28th December 2018 submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Haveri Sub Division. He relied upon the office memorandum dated 8th August 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. He submitted that the memorandum is applicable for developmental projects located within 10 kilometers of National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries. He has also pointed out that mining stone quarry and running of stone crushers is prohibited in the Eco Sensitive Zone and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon notification dated 6th July 2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. According to him, Eco Sensitive Zone consists of belt of 100 meters.

6. We have considered the submissions. Sub Section 9 of Section 95 of the said Act reads thus:

“(9) Whenever any occupant of land assessed or held for purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof for the purpose of quarrying of minor minerals, whether specified or non specified in accordance with the rules governing quarrying of minor minerals or stone crushing activity under the K